Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave-ROR
Doesn't that make it even more sad that even with today's technology and engineering they couldn't best that though?
|
Nah, the cars are not comparable. The ITR is so jarring, it's almost not drivable on the street. And with current safety standards, it's more difficult to make cars that low. That the FT has decent clearance and a COG height of 460 mm is a testament to today's technology and engineering. Especially when you also consider that that FT is RWD, has more power, more torque, better MPG, and 250 pounds less over the front wheels than the ITR!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave-ROR
Also the frs has no sunroof so comparing it to cars that came with them by default like the rsx-s or gsr make less sense  |
You bring up a good point about the sunroof, but the FT is still more like the GSR and RSX-S than the ITR in terms of livability (at least going by reports so far).
According to what I read in this thread, the FT's COG is 5 mm higher than the ITR's. However, the JDM FT ground clearance is 25 mm higher than the JDM ITR (and 15 mm higher than the USA ITR). Lower the FT so it has the same ground clearance as the ITR, and it will have a lower COG than the ITR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave-ROR
I'm also bitter that Toyota lied about the cog.
|
Meh. I remember reading somewhere that someone said it would have the lowest COG of any production car (I forget if it was an engineer or marketing person), but I knew at the time that wasn't going to happen. I suspect it was an embellishment that wasn't meant to be quoted, or a misunderstanding from bad translating.
In any case, until things are officially announced later this month, any of these specs are subject to change.